Hans von Spakovskyhttp://www.pfaw.org/
Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:17:13 -0400Tue, 14 Oct 2014 16:18:58 -0400Nothing To See Here: The Alternate Reality Of Voter-Suppression Advocateshttp://www.pfaw.org/content/nothing-see-here-alternate-reality-voter-suppression-advocates
<img class="imagefield imagefield-field_teaser_astory" width="390" height="250" alt="" src="http://www.pfaw.org/sites/default/files/images/a_story_images/kris_kobach_A.jpg?1381161842" />
<p>It&rsquo;s been a rough few days for voter-ID proponents.&nbsp;<span style="line-height: 20.3999996185303px;">On Thursday, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office </span><a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/independent-gao-report-voter-id-lowers-turnout" style="line-height: 20.3999996185303px;">came out with a report</a><span style="line-height: 20.3999996185303px;"> showing that restrictive photo-ID measures had depressed turnout in Tennessee and Kansas, especially among young people and African Americans. The same day, the Supreme Court </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-voter-id-law.html" style="line-height: 20.3999996185303px;">blocked the implementation</a><span style="line-height: 20.3999996185303px;"> of a photo-ID law in Wisconsin that voting rights advocates said there was not enough time to implement before the election and a </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-voter-id-law.html" style="line-height: 20.3999996185303px;"> federal judge in Texas struck down that state&rsquo;s restrictive law</a><span style="line-height: 20.3999996185303px;">, citing its impact on minority voters and calling it an &ldquo;</span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/13/opinion/the-big-lie-behind-voter-id-laws.html" style="line-height: 20.3999996185303px;">unconstitutional poll tax</a><span style="line-height: 20.3999996185303px;">.&rdquo;</span></p>
<p>Then, the next day, renowned conservative 7<sup>th</sup> Circuit judge Richard Posner requested a full-court rehearing of the challenge to Wisconsin&rsquo;s law, in the process offering a blistering takedown of the voter-ID crowd&rsquo;s arguments. "There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens,&rdquo; <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-why-voter-id-laws-are-evil-20141013-column.html#page=1">he wrote.</a> He added a special dig at the advocacy group True the Vote, calling some of their supposed evidence of voter-impersonation fraud &ldquo;goofy&rdquo; and &ldquo;paranoid.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Then, just today, University of Delaware researchers came out with a study showing that support for voter ID laws among whites jumps <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/14/whites-are-more-supportive-of-voter-id-laws-when-shown-photos-of-black-people-voting/"> when they are shown a picture of a black person voting</a>.</p>
<p>All of which made <a href="http://www.heritage.org/events/2014/10/keeping-elections-honest">a Heritage Foundation panel today</a> called &ldquo;Keeping Elections Honest&rdquo; seem like it was taking place in an alternate reality, one in which the extremely rare voter-impersonation fraud is in fact rampant and in which laws making it more difficult to vote do not have negative effects.</p>
<p>The Heritage discussion featured&nbsp;some of the nation&rsquo;s top proponents of voter suppression measures, including Heritage&rsquo;s Hans von Spakovsky, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (the brains behind anti-immigrant and voter suppression measures around the country), Kobach&rsquo;s Colorado counterpart Scott Gessler and True the Vote&rsquo;s Catherine Engelbrecht.</p>
<p>Kobach spent part of his presentation attempting to <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/kris-kobach-doesnt-new-gao-study-showing-his-voter-id-law-decreased-turnout">refute the GAO study</a>, but the court rulings went mostly unmentioned.</p>
<p>This alternate reality was perhaps most stark when, during a question-and-answer session, a reporter asked Kobach about the <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/kansas-moves-ahead-two-tiered-voting-system-some-voters-allowed-cast-ballots-only-federal-el"> two-tiered voting system he&rsquo;s instituted in Kansas </a> for the coming election. Kobach and Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett are in the process of suing the Election Assistance Commission to include a more restrictive &ldquo;proof of citizenship&rdquo; requirement on the federal voter registration forms it uses in those two states. In the meantime, Kansas and Arizona are allowing people who register using the federal form without providing additional documentation to vote&hellip;but only in federal elections. (Votes those people cast in state-level elections won&rsquo;t be counted.)</p>
<p>About <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/08/25/dual-track-voting-single-choice/14551085/">1,500 Arizonans</a> and 200 Kansans were put in this special federal-only voting tier in the primary.</p>
<p>Kobach, far from seeming concerned about this state of affairs, proudly reported that of the 200 Kansans to whom he gave special limited voting rights, <em>only one </em>bothered to show up at the polls.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the primary on August 5, we had fewer than 200 total voters in the state who had registered using the federal form and had not provided photo ID. Using that number, we then created a sort of federal-elections-only voter roll, if you will, so a roll in addition to the main voter roll. And it didn&rsquo;t include all of the 105 counties, it included a minority of the counties. And then those people, when they showed up, they were to be given a provisional ballot and told that they would be &mdash; actually it would occur on the back end, even if the poll worker didn&rsquo;t know that that&rsquo;s why they were being given a provisional ballot, the county canvas would count only the federal elections on the ballot.</p>
<p>&hellip;</p>
<p>So anyway, to answer your question, we are going to be doing a count, a final count &ndash; our registration actually closes today, this is the final day to register in Kansas &ndash; as soon as it closes, we&rsquo;ll have a final count. My guess is it probably will be in the range of maybe 300-400, we&rsquo;ll know soon what that number is, for the whole state. <strong>And by the way, of those fewer than 200 people&mdash; if memory serves, it was like 186 or something like that &mdash; only one actually showed up to vote out of that entire number.</strong> So, we&rsquo;ll see what the number is. <strong>So the numbers are actually pretty small and pretty manageable right now</strong> and we&rsquo;re hopeful that we&rsquo;ll get a decision that will be a favorable one and then we won&rsquo;t have to maintain a separate, federal-elections-only list.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>At no point in the discussion did anyone mention the <a href="http://kansasfirstnews.com/2014/09/02/advocates-seeking-people-with-voter-problems/"> thousands of Kansans who currently have no right to vote in any kind of election </a> because they haven&rsquo;t been able to produce one of the few kinds of citizenship documentation required by the new state voter registration form.</p>
Miranda BlueArizonaC4Catherine EngelbrechtColoradoHans von SpakovskyHeritage FoundationKansasKen BennettKris Kobach Scott GesslerTrue the VoteVoting RightsThe Right to Vote48649Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:17:13 -0500Hans von SpakovskyThe 10 Most Absurd Arguments Against The Udall Citizens United Amendmenthttp://www.pfaw.org/content/10-most-deceptive-arguments-against-udall-citizens-united-amendment
<img class="imagefield imagefield-field_teaser_astory" width="390" height="250" alt="" src="http://www.pfaw.org/sites/default/files/images/a_story_images/money_with_flag_a.jpg?1360356795" />
<p>While good-government groups have been <a href="http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2014/06/edit-memo-senator-udall-s-constitutional-amendment-proposal-would-restore-fir"> calling for a constitutional amendment </a> to reverse the Supreme Court&rsquo;s dismantling of campaign finance laws <a href="http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2010/01/people-american-way-calls-constitutional-amendment-undo-supreme-court-decisio"> since the day the Court handed down Citizens United </a> in 2010, the issue has been largely off the radar of conservative activists &ndash; and has actually enjoyed broad bipartisan support in an&nbsp;<a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/new-poll-americans-think-the-supreme-court-is-political-clos">array</a>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.people-press.org/2012/01/17/super-pacs-having-negative-impact-say-voters-aware-of-citizens-united-ruling/">of</a>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/voters-strongly-back-amen_n_787526.html">polls</a> and in&nbsp;<a href="http://www.united4thepeople.org/local.html">state and municipal ballot measures</a>.</p>
<p>It was largely off their radar, that is, until this week. This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a <a href="http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2014/06/edit-memo-senator-udall-s-constitutional-amendment-proposal-would-restore-fir"> proposal by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M</a>., to send a constitutional amendment to the states restoring to Congress and state governments the ability to regulate the raising and spending of money in elections. In response, Republican politicians and conservative activists have kicked into gear and are starting to try out new talking points to get their movement to oppose efforts to lessen the influence of big money in politics.</p>
<p>Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, launched the misleading campaign two weeks ago when <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-claims-citizens-united-repeal-would-muzzle-pastors">he warned a group of pastors</a> that the Udall proposal would &ldquo;repeal the First Amendment&rdquo; and allow Congress to &ldquo;muzzle&rdquo; the free speech of clergy. In advance of the hearing today, conservative groups including the <a href="http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/the-forced-amendment-dems-push-for-constitutional-re-do">Family Research Council</a>, <a href="http://www.eagleforum.org/publications/alerts.html?vvsrc=%2fCampaigns%2f36289%2fRespond%3funregistered%3dZ8tT6cFl02NtXPq1ua_u8g%26vvcgRD%3dA47B2PcQg5%26vvsbr%3dbyZ32VtZ3X8Ale1WMUG_Ew"> Eagle Forum</a>, <a href="http://www.teapartypatriots.org/all-issues/news/why-harry-reid-wants-to-repeal-the-first-amendment/">Tea Party Patriots</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;the <a href="http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2014/201406020.asp">Home School Legal Defense Association</a> started to mobilize against the amendment. Yesterday, the Heritage Foundation held a <a href="http://www.heritage.org/events/2014/06/first-amendment">panel discussion</a> to test out arguments against the amendment, featuring Bobby Burchfield, the attorney who argued the McCutcheon case before the Supreme Court, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-fec-chairman-donald-mcgahn-resigns-from-panel/2013/09/17/84ff1a88-1fca-11e3-94a2-6c66b668ea55_story.html"> controversial former FEC chairman Don McGahn</a>, and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-b-keegan/meet-hans-von-spakovsky-t_b_5432200.html"> infamous voter-fraud conspiracy theorist Hans van Spakovsky </a> .</p>
<p>Here, we&rsquo;ve collected some of the most deceptive arguments that have been launched so far against the Udall amendment.</p>
<p><strong>1.</strong> <strong> Democrats want to repeal the First Amendment!</strong></p>
<p>When we first heard Ted Cruz &nbsp;tell a stunned group of pastors that Democrats in the Senate were planning to &ldquo;<a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-claims-citizens-united-repeal-would-muzzle-pastors">repeal the First Amendment</a>,&rdquo; we knew that we would be hearing that line again and again.</p>
<p align="center"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.pfaw.org//www.youtube.com/embed/vePD1Sw3IyA" width="560"></iframe></p>
<p>And we were right. Tea Party Patriots <a href="http://www.teapartypatriots.org/all-issues/news/why-harry-reid-wants-to-repeal-the-first-amendment/">adopted the line</a> in mobilizing its activists, <a href="http://www.eagleforum.org/publications/alerts.html?vvsrc=%2fCampaigns%2f36289%2fRespond%3funregistered%3dZ8tT6cFl02NtXPq1ua_u8g%26vvcgRD%3dA47B2PcQg5%26vvsbr%3dbyZ32VtZ3X8Ale1WMUG_Ew"> as did the Eagle Forum</a>. The Family Research Council claimed the Udall amendment would &ldquo;<a href="http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/the-forced-amendment-dems-push-for-constitutional-re-do">strip political speech out of the First Amendment</a>,&rdquo; and von Spakovsky <a href="http://www.heritage.org/events/2014/06/first-amendment">told the Heritage panel </a>that the amendment would &ldquo;roll back&rdquo; the Bill of Rights.</p>
<p>Burchfield and McGahn both argued that the introduction of the constitutional amendment means, in the words of McGahn, that campaign finance law advocates are &ldquo;admitting&rdquo; that campaign finance regulations are &ldquo;unconstitutional.&rdquo;</p>
<p>On the surface, this is the opposition&rsquo;s strongest argument, because it sounds so scary. But it&rsquo;s just not true. Whether you support the Udall amendment or not, it&rsquo;s dishonest to suggest that it would amount to a &ldquo;repeal of the First Amendment.&rdquo; Instead, proponents argue that it strengthens the First Amendment by <a href="http://www.pfaw.org/press-releases/2014/06/edit-memo-senator-udall-s-constitutional-amendment-proposal-would-restore-fir"> undoing the Supreme Court&rsquo;s jurisprudence </a> declaring that spending on elections, including from corporate treasuries, cannot be limited. Proponents of the Udall amendment hold that this jurisprudence, including recent decisions in the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases, represented a <a href="http://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/gospel-citizens-united-hobby-lobby-corporations-pray-right-deny-workers-co"> radical reinterpretation of the First Amendment</a>; undoing them would simply re-establish the ability of Congress and the states to set reasonable regulations on the raising and spending of money to influence elections.</p>
<p><strong>2.</strong> <strong> Amendment supporters want to &lsquo;silence critics&rsquo; and &lsquo;cling to power&rsquo;!</strong></p>
<p>The<a href="http://www.heritage.org/events/2014/06/first-amendment"> Heritage panelists</a> repeatedly claimed that the Udall amendment is an attempt to protect incumbency by preventing challengers from raising enough money to win elections. McGahn insisted that it was an effort by Democratic incumbents &ldquo;desperately clinging to power.&rdquo;</p>
<p>&ldquo;They want to change the rules of the game and prevent people from criticizing them, not unlike England did before our revolution, and which led to our revolution,&rdquo; he added.</p>
<p>The American Family Association&rsquo;s Sandy Rios also invoked the American Revolution in an <a href="http://mediaserver3.afa.net/archives/SandyRios/sr_060214.mp3">interview with von Spakovsky yesterday</a>, saying, &ldquo;The First Amendment, the rights to free speech &ndash; particularly the right to political speech &ndash; were the right to criticize the king, criticize the authorities over you.&rdquo;</p>
<p>In a later interview with Rios, Tea Party Patriots spokesman Scott Hogenson even managed to connect the Udall amendment with immigration reform, claiming that both are part of a &ldquo;larger, concerted effort to maintain the Democratic Party&rsquo;s control of American politics and eventually move to one-party rule.&rdquo;</p>
<p align="center""><iframe frameborder="no" height="166" scrolling="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/152663750&color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_artwork=true&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false" width="100%"></iframe></p>
<p>In reality, it&rsquo;s unlimited campaign spending that tends to be a boon for incumbents, who on average are <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/incumbs.php">able to raise far more than challengers</a>. For instance, in Texas, a state with few campaign finance limits, incumbents who win on average raise more than twelve times the average amount raised by challengers. By contrast, in Colorado, which has relatively low individual contribution limits, incumbents on average raise less than three times what challengers are able to raise [<a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/press/Reports/Bender_Montana_Law_Review_2013.pdf">pdf</a>].</p>
<p><strong>3.</strong> <strong> Liberals just want to protect the lame-stream media!</strong></p>
<p>In his speech to the pastors' group, Ted Cruz seized on the <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/148408191/Udall-Constitutional-Amendment-on-Campaign-Finance">Udall proposal&rsquo;s stipulation</a> that &ldquo;Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press&rdquo; to <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-claims-citizens-united-repeal-would-muzzle-pastors">claim that the amendment carved out an exemption to protect the New York Times</a>.</p>
<p>Von Spakovsky also played up conservative conspiracy theories about the &ldquo;liberal media,&rdquo; <a href="http://mediaserver3.afa.net/archives/SandyRios/sr_060214.mp3"> telling Rios</a>, &ldquo;No surprise, there&rsquo;s a glaring exception in this proposed amendment for the press. And that means that MSNBC or the New York Times Company, which are big corporations, they could spend as much newsprint or airtime as they wanted going after and criticizing candidates or talking about political issues.&rdquo;</p>
<p>These arguments fail to recognize one key distinction, which is that there is a difference between the New York Times publishing an editorial (which would be protected under the proposed amendment, as it is now) and the corporate managers of the New York Times taking $50 million out of their corporate treasury to buy ads to influence an election (which would not be protected).</p>
<p><strong>4.</strong> <strong> They&rsquo;ll go after pastors!</strong></p>
<p>Opponents of the constitutional amendment have also been trying to tie the proposal to the right-wing paranoia about the <a href="http://blog.pfaw.org/content/religious-right-s-persecution-complex-pfaw-member-telebriefing-0"> impending persecution of America&rsquo;s Christian majority </a> .</p>
<p>It&rsquo;s no coincidence that Cruz rolled out his criticism of the Udall proposal at a pastors&rsquo; event organized by the Family Research Council, a main theme of which was the supposed assault on the religious liberty of Christians in America. Cruz <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-claims-citizens-united-repeal-would-muzzle-pastors">told the pastors</a> that the Udall measure would &ldquo;muzzle&rdquo; clergy and was being proposed because &ldquo;they don&rsquo;t like it when pastors in their community stand up and speak the truth.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Likewise, McGahn said at the Heritage event that the amendment would endanger the religious liberty of clergy: &ldquo;What about pastors and churches? This is an issue that comes up once in a while. Can the government get in there and tell a priest he can&rsquo;t talk to his congregation because it may somehow have something to do with politics?&rdquo;</p>
<p>This might be true if the proposal would, in fact, &ldquo;repeal the First Amendment.&rdquo; In fact, the First Amendment&rsquo;s protection of religious liberty would remain in place.</p>
<p>Of course, that didn&rsquo;t stop the FRC&rsquo;s Tony Perkins from somehow <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tony-perkins-links-effort-overturn-citizens-united-imprisonment-christian-sudanese-woman"> linking the Udall amendment </a> to the imprisonment of a Christian woman in Sudan:</p>
<p align="center"><iframe frameborder="no" height="166" scrolling="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/152495268&color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_artwork=true&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false" width="100%"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>5.</strong> <strong> It&rsquo;s like the Alien & Sedition Acts!</strong></p>
<p>Along with comparisons to British control before the American Revolution, amendment opponents are trying to link the Udall proposal to the 18<sup>th</sup> century <a href="http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Alien.html">Alien & Sedition Acts</a>.</p>
<p>In his interview with Rios yesterday, van Spakovsky <a href="http://mediaserver3.afa.net/archives/SandyRios/sr_060214.mp3">claimed</a> that &ldquo;the last time Congress tried to do something like this was when they passed the Alien & Sedition Act in 1798 that criminalized criticism of the government.&rdquo; Multiple GOP senators at today&rsquo;s hearing, including Judiciary Committeee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, repeated the talking point.</p>
<p>Of course, the amendment does nothing to reduce the right of individuals to criticize the government or politicians.</p>
<p><strong>6.</strong> <strong> The polls are skewed!</strong></p>
<p>When an audience member at yesterday&rsquo;s Heritage Foundation panel asked about polls showing overwhelming opposition to the Citizens United decision, McGahn replied that the questions in the polls were &ldquo;skewed.&rdquo;</p>
<p>You can judge for yourself whether this question from a recent <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/new-poll-americans-think-the-supreme-court-is-political-clos"> Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll&nbsp;</a>&nbsp;&ndash; which found 80 percent opposition to the Citizens United decision&nbsp;&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;is &ldquo;skewed&rdquo; on behalf of campaign finance law proponents:</p>
<p align="center"><img alt="" src="http://www.pfaw.org/sites/default/files/images/buzzfeed%20poll.jpg" style="width: 502px; height: 174px;" /></p>
<p>(<a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/new-poll-americans-think-the-supreme-court-is-political-clos">image via Buzzfeed</a>)</p>
<p><strong>7.</strong> <strong> What about disclosure?</strong></p>
<p>In one of the least self-aware moments we&rsquo;ve witnessed in the last few days, McGahn told the Heritage audience that campaign finance reform proponents could have just worked for tougher disclosure requirements, which the Supreme Court&rsquo;s majority has consistently endorsed as a way to prevent corruption:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>What&rsquo;s interesting is the courts have upheld some disclosure of independent speech, which six months ago was supposed to be the answer, a year ago was supposed to be the answer &ndash; remember the DISCLOSE Act, Part 1 and Part 2? Well, that was supposed to cure all the ills in our democracy, but unfortunately I guess they&rsquo;ve given up on that and they&rsquo;ve moved to the more radical change, which is the constitutional amendment.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course, the DISCLOSE Act &ndash; which would have exposed the source of some of the &ldquo;dark money&rdquo; behind large campaign expenditures &ndash; was <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/disclose-act-senate-campaign-spending_n_1678055.html">blocked by Senate Republicans.</a> And McGahn, when he was at the FEC, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/18/us-usa-elections-fec-idUSBRE98H12720130918">fought hard against disclosure requirements</a> proposed in the wake of the Citizens United decision, even though the decision&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/us/disclosure-may-be-real-legacy-of-citizens-united-case.html">explicitly sanctioned such requirements.</a></p>
<p><strong>8. The poor don&rsquo;t participate anyway!</strong></p>
<p>Speaking to the Heritage audience, Burchfield &nbsp;presented the curious argument that the Udall amendment would demand to "equalize debate among the haves and have-nots,&rdquo; and since &ldquo;the portion is small&rdquo; of &ldquo;those with limited means&rdquo; who participate in electoral debates, this would require &ldquo;severe restrictions.&rdquo;</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The rich do not advocate a single viewpoint. Think of Sheldon Adelson and George Soros, they don&rsquo;t agree on anything. There are strong voices on the left and on the right, not just in privately funded campaign advertisements, but also in the broadcast and print media.&nbsp;<strong>Only a small portion of those with significant resources even bother to participate in the debate. And among those with limited means, the portion is small indeed. In order to equalize debate among the haves and the have-nots, severe restrictions would be necessary.</strong>&nbsp;The quantity and quality of discourse would certainly suffer.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The amendment under consideration doesn&rsquo;t require that everybody be heard an equal amount; instead, it gives Congress and the states the ability to create a more even platform for those who wish to be heard, regardless of their financial means. &nbsp;</p>
<p>Burchfield's reasoning echoes the arguments of voter-suppression proponents who claim that their laws only inconvenience people who <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/kris-kobach-thinks-disenfranchising-12000-voters-isnt-major-problem">don&rsquo;t really care about voting anyway</a>.</p>
<p><strong>9.</strong> <strong> It&rsquo;s voter suppression!</strong></p>
<p>Although many of the advocates of unlimited, undisclosed money in politics are the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-b-keegan/meet-hans-von-spakovsky-t_b_5432200.html">same people pushing harmful voter suppression laws</a>, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tony-perkins-links-effort-overturn-citizens-united-imprisonment-christian-sudanese-woman"> yesterday insisted </a> that it&rsquo;s actually amendment proponents who are advocating &ldquo;voter suppression&rdquo; and want to &ldquo;silence&rdquo; critics.</p>
<p align="center"><iframe frameborder="no" height="166" scrolling="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/152495336&color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_artwork=true&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false" width="100%"></iframe></p>
<p><strong>10.</strong> <strong> Blame Saul Alinsky!</strong></p>
<p>Inevitably, anti-amendment activists have begun invoking the right-wing bogey-man Saul Alinsky.</p>
<p>Hogenson <a href="http://mediaserver3.afa.net/archives/SandyRios/sr_060214.mp3">told Rios</a> that the Udall amendment is &ldquo;just taken right out of Saul Alinksy&rsquo;s book, &lsquo;Rules for Radicals,&rsquo; it just makes up a gigantic lie and perpetuates it, that somehow democracy needs to be restored.&rdquo;</p>
<p>Von Spakovsky <a href="http://mediaserver3.afa.net/archives/SandyRios/sr_060214.mp3">also invoked Alinsky</a> in his interview with Rios, claiming that criticism of the enormous political spending of the Koch brothers is an Alinskyite plot: &ldquo;What&rsquo;s really going on here is, look, if you look at Alinsky&rsquo;s &lsquo;Rules for Radicals,&rsquo; one of the rules that he sets out is you pick a villain and you basically blame those villains for all of the problems. It&rsquo;s a way of distracting the public, it&rsquo;s a way of diverting attention, and that&rsquo;s exactly what Harry Reid and the Democrats are doing here.&rdquo;</p>
Miranda BlueAmerican Family Association Bobby BurchfieldC4Citizens UnitedDon McGahnGovernment By the PeopleHans von SpakovskyHeritage FoundationHome School Legal Defense Association Pat RobertsTed CruzTony Perkins Eagle Forum Family Research CouncilFair and Just Courts47053Tue, 03 Jun 2014 15:51:21 -0500Hans von SpakovskyRight Wing Round-Up - 6/2/14http://www.pfaw.org/content/right-wing-round-6214
<img class="imagefield imagefield-field_teaser_astory" width="390" height="250" alt="" src="http://www.pfaw.org/sites/default/files/images/a_story_rww/roundup_a.jpg?1383228480" />
<ul> <li> <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-b-keegan/meet-hans-von-spakovsky-t_b_5432200.html">Michael Keegan @ The Huffington Post</a>: Meet Hans von Spakovsky, the Face of the Right-Wing Defense of Citizens United.</li> <p> <li> <a href="http://www.alan.com/2014/06/02/herman-cain-says-god-may-want-him-to-run-for-president-again/">Alan Colmes</a>: Herman Cain Says God May Want Him To Run For President Again.</li> <p> <li> <a href="http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2014/06/illinois-anti-gay-activist-same-sex-marriage-as-profoundly-wrong-as-were-legal-prohibitions-of-interracial-marriage.html">Jeremy Hooper</a>: Illinois anti-gay activist: Same-sex marriage 'as profoundly wrong as were legal prohibitions of interracial marriage.'</li> <p> <li> <a href="https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/sinking-ship-creationist-ministry-continues-to-over-promise-on-ky-ark-park">Simon Brown @ Wall of Separation</a>: Sinking Ship?: Creationist Ministry Continues To Over-Promise On Ky. &lsquo;Ark Park.&rsquo;</li> <p> <li> <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/nra-open-carry-guns-backlash-texas">Mark Follman @ Mother Jones</a>: Fearing Rising Backlash, NRA Urges Gun Activists to Stand Down.</li></ul>
Kyle MantylaHans von SpakovskyLaurie HigginsNRARound-Up47040Mon, 02 Jun 2014 16:34:19 -0500Hans von SpakovskyRight Wing Leftovers - 2/22/13http://www.pfaw.org/content/right-wing-leftovers-22213
<ul>
<li>
Even though studies <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/22/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say">keep</a> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">proving</a> that morning-after pills don&rsquo;t cause abortion, Religious Right groups will continue to baselessly argue otherwise.&nbsp;</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
Family Research Council <a href="http://www.frc.org/washingtonupdate/one-wedding-march-you-wont-want-to-miss">invites you</a> to the National Organization for Marriage&rsquo;s anti-gay Marriage March.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
Yet another <a href="http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/2013/02/fairfax-countys-nightmare-is-over.html">tough break</a> for professional vote-suppressor Hans von Spakovsky.&nbsp;</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
Anyone want to buy <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/conservative-magazine-human-events-up-for-sale-could-close-87925.html">Human Events</a>?</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
AFA&rsquo;s Buster Wilson is <a href="http://busterwilson.me/2013/02/21/ok-ok-let-me-say-it-again-in-context/">mad at us</a> because we <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/wilson-government-may-classify-christians-mentally-ill-get-us-out-picture">quoted him verbatim</a>.&nbsp;</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
Rick Warren is <a href="https://twitter.com/RickWarren/status/304727493288534016">very</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/RickWarren/status/304581139845222400">very</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/RickWarren/status/304581916332531712">very</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/RickWarren/status/304586148322365440">sad</a> that Tim Tebow pulled out of his appearance at Robert Jeffress&rsquo; megachurch.&nbsp;</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
Press release of the day: &ldquo;<a href="http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130222005703/en/WWE%C2%AE-Invites-Glenn-Beck-Raw">WWE invites Glenn Beck to Get Raw</a>.&rdquo;</li>
</ul>
Brian TashmanBuster WilsoncontraceptionHans von SpakovskyHuman Events LeftoversNational Organization for MarriageRick Warren Tim TebowFamily Research CouncilGlenn Beck42281Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:45:28 -0500Hans von SpakovskyRight Wing Round-Up - 10/22/12http://www.pfaw.org/content/right-wing-round-102212
<ul> <li><a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/allen-west-is-too-controversial-to-lose">Rosie Gray @ BuzzFeed:</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;Allen West Is Too Controversial To Lose.</li> <p> <li><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/10/22/1057711/romney-campaign-flops-twice-on-marriage-amendment-and-same-sex-benefits/">Zack Ford @ Think Progress</a>: Romney Campaign Flops Twice On Marriage Amendment And Same-Sex &lsquo;Benefits.&rsquo;</li> <p> <li><a href="http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2012/10/audio-maryland-marriage-alliance-panel-claims-gays-and-supporters-are-worthy-of-death.html">Good As You</a>:&nbsp;Maryland Marriage Alliance panel claims gays and supporters are 'worthy of death.'</li> <p> <li><a href="http://wthrockmorton.com/2012/10/21/bryan-fischer-finds-a-gay-he-can-like/">Warren Throckmorton</a>:&nbsp;Bryan Fischer finds a gay he can like.</li> <p> <li><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/29/121029fa_fact_mayer">Jane Mayer @ The New Yorker</a>: The Voter-Fraud Myth.</li> <p> <li><a href="http://www.towleroad.com/2012/10/angela-mccaskill-calls-for-anti-gay-group-to-stop-using-her-image.html">Towleroad</a>:&nbsp;Angela McCaskill Calls For Anti-Gay Group To Stop Using Her Image.</li> <p> <li>Finally, CNN's Carol Costello <a href="http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2012/10/22/nr-costello-gay-gestapo.cnn.html ">responds</a> to Bryan Fischer:</li> <p align="center"><object width="416" height="374" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=bestoftv/2012/10/22/nr-costello-gay-gestapo.cnn" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><embed src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=bestoftv/2012/10/22/nr-costello-gay-gestapo.cnn" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="416" wmode="transparent" height="374"></embed></object></ul>Kyle MantylaAllen WestBryan FischerHans von SpakovskyRound-Up41324Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:43:49 -0500Hans von Spakovsky